As far as using these messages and files to re-interpret the evidence for the human influence on climate change goes, I completely agree with you.

However, as an atmospheric scientist myself, I feel that there is damaging material in these emails. In particular, the emails regarding FOI and the peer review process sound very bad. Don't get me wrong, I have studied at the Climatic Research Unit and I have massive respect for their work and nearly all of the bad stuff can be explained away (i.e. there are IP issues regarding the data that is subject to the FOI and the journal at the centre of the peer review argument deserved the criticism it got in these emails). But the way these subjects were discussed in these private messages is probably going to have an effect on the wider perception of climate scientists.

I tend to agree. What frustrates me though is that as a scientist it feels like we're locked in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. When scientists speak very formally and clinically, you're accused of not connecting with people, all being in agreement/collusion with each other, and not being 'human'. When that passionate, argumentative, human side is revealed, suddenly you're being criticized for being too human, for lack of objectivity and so on.

It leaves me wondering what exactly do the public want from scientists?

Indeed Martin, you have hit the nail on the head with this one. This is very much in line with my recent thinking.

Skeptical bloggers, through their writing, are developing a crude anthropology of scientific denial.

It's particularly interesting to observe it in climate change because it's so mainstream, more so even than vaccine denial.

Seeing the way in way a complex climatological issue is interpreted by people without the scientific training to do so (myself included), and that this tends to correlates with left/right political views, is fascinating.

I am at a loss at how disparaging people is going to resolve the larger problem, the apparent departures taken from an open scientific perspective and the politization of a scientific question.

The theories behind AGW are not established to the same degree that Darwin's ideas are, they are subject to investigation and open to alternate explanations that don't include: "God did it".

You, in your statement, are basically engaging in what is known as an ad-hominum attack, agree with me because if you don't, I'll think you are one of them "_____________" and they are "Crude" wrong thinkers, and are 'obviously' unable to differentiate or analyze 'Complex climatological issues' like people who agree with me.

You picked my name, I let it go because I know that even as scientifically trained as you are, your feelings are going to prevent your training from taking control. These emails show a total disregard for the process of scientific investigation. One of the basic tenets of science is to not allow your desire for an outcome to influence your scientific processes. Remember back to early 2000 when John Hopkins was barred from continuing all it's studies involving humans(though the ban did not last)? Why?; because they dropped the scientific tenets to safe hold the volunteer participants. Two other universities fell through those safety rails also. What was the first reaction from the scientific community? Hostility and denial and a lot of it. In the end they had to admit they were obtuse and had failed to follow those basic tenets. Did you also miss where the university "dumped the raw data" which was recreated by the climate scientists? Are we to believe they were the only repository of that information? Or does it mean that the raw data is available but would have to be collected into one set of data from multiple sources? Any scientist worth his salt would be the first to demand ethical behavior correct? Human nature interferes every time. What the general public wants and deserves is science which is truthful, honest and ethical and that benefits the human condition. If it is proven science then you can replicate the results of any experiment, any where, any when, any place using the same protocols (excluding for pressure or lack of). If it is a theory, then it is the best guess of a consensus of individuals. Like Mandel's work, he did not have any "proof" but his work was solid and was proven with modern labs. But his work was a finite piece. He had multiple generations of his work to make his observations from. Our planet has been warmer and cooler, just ask any anthropologist or biologist. We are working from an observational period of a blip in time. In scientific terms, we do not have enough data to draw accurate conclusions. A investigation into this is not even up for discussion. Penn has started there own. England's director has stepped down. Once you cry wolf your cries are never heard.

The truth.

I have had the idea that most scientists are not creationists and belive the earth is billions of years old. I always wonder how a relativly short actual study span of even one century, and climate change has not even been studied that long, could be used to form the theory of man made global warming and been taken so seriously. Man was not the cause of the ice ages and warming over billions of years. It is my understanding that 2009 has been a very cool year in the USA, and in a discussion with the Barangy Capt. in the Philippines in Febuary I was told that the weather there had been cold for them. I am not a scientist, but it really seems to me that this is about the money, AGAIN!